• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Social Conservatism Finished as a Nationally Competitive Ideology?

Is social conservatism finished as a nationally competitive ideology?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 50.9%
  • No

    Votes: 26 49.1%

  • Total voters
    53

Cameron

Politically Correct
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
6,257
Reaction score
5,763
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
For two consecutive elections now -- one in which Republicans won by large margins, and now one in which Democrats won despite the economy being heavily against them -- social issues seem to have cost Republicans major Senate seats in right-leaning states. The issue of abortion seems to be killing Republican candidacies. Gay marriage is turning a corner in popularity. And the demographics are shifting extremely quickly even further to the left.

I think it's usually a terrible idea to say "such and such an ideology is dead" after an election. These things have a tendency to turn around somehow or another. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion after the past four years that this country is shifting dramatically, social conservatism is no longer a winning ideology nationally, and it is unlikely to be one again for the foreseeable future.

What do you think?
 
For two consecutive elections now -- one in which Republicans won by large margins, and now one in which Democrats won despite the economy being heavily against them -- social issues seem to have cost Republicans major Senate seats in right-leaning states. The issue of abortion seems to be killing Republican candidacies. Gay marriage is turning a corner in popularity. And the demographics are shifting extremely quickly even further to the left.

I think it's usually a terrible idea to say "such and such an ideology is dead" after an election. These things have a tendency to turn around somehow or another. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion after the past four years that this country is shifting dramatically, social conservatism is no longer a winning ideology nationally, and it is unlikely to be one again for the foreseeable future.

What do you think?

Maybe some people considered the last two GOP presidential nominees to be too moderate.
 
Maybe some people considered the last two GOP presidential nominees to be too moderate.
That's true. That wouldn't explain why Akin lost in Missouri, Mourdock in Indiana, Angle in Nevada, etc., though.
 
At the national level, yes, I think it is a losing position. And with each passing year, and as the older voters die off (not to sound morbid), the nation will become even more socially liberal. You got to change with the times.
 
For two consecutive elections now -- one in which Republicans won by large margins, and now one in which Democrats won despite the economy being heavily against them -- social issues seem to have cost Republicans major Senate seats in right-leaning states. The issue of abortion seems to be killing Republican candidacies. Gay marriage is turning a corner in popularity. And the demographics are shifting extremely quickly even further to the left.

I think it's usually a terrible idea to say "such and such an ideology is dead" after an election. These things have a tendency to turn around somehow or another. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion after the past four years that this country is shifting dramatically, social conservatism is no longer a winning ideology nationally, and it is unlikely to be one again for the foreseeable future.

What do you think?

You read too much into this.

McCain lost because he was a Republican coming off of Bush and he picked Palin. Palin was bat **** crazy. And Social Conservatism really was a mild case in 2008.
Romney lost for a variety of reasons, one of which being Romney. Romney is hardly a hardcore social conservative. Granted, he may be hiding, but he seemed not to have problems with abortion UNTIL he needed to get a nomination for Presidency. While Ryan is a basketcase of crazy and lies, he's just the Veep.

Yes, Social Conservatism did cost them house and senate seats, but don't read too much into a wide spread pattern.
 
Maybe some people considered the last two GOP presidential nominees to be too moderate.

And yet by being less moderate, those candidates would have garnered fewer votes. The United States is not really a socially conservative country. And it becomes less and less so every passing year.
 
probably yes, but we'll see close races based on it for years to come.
 
I am not a social conservative but I have much respect for that particular ideology and I think it is equally as good as social liberalism, which is where I consider myself to me... more like a social centrist with a liberal pinch...

In Europe, social conservatism is a really big deal and many parties who are in power accept it as their platform.
 
No, it's not. Social conservatism just needs to be redefined.
 
Social conservatism will never die, because there will always be a societal status quo that some people will want to conserve.

What social conservatism MEANS, however, may change. But that would have been true without this election too.
 
Social conservatism as we know it is dyng with the old and organized religon. It poses no threat to the future. Sure some local governments here and there with have a social conservative, but I don't think there will be another social conservative president ever again(an activist one that presses the issue nationally).
 
For two consecutive elections now -- one in which Republicans won by large margins, and now one in which Democrats won despite the economy being heavily against them -- social issues seem to have cost Republicans major Senate seats in right-leaning states. The issue of abortion seems to be killing Republican candidacies. Gay marriage is turning a corner in popularity. And the demographics are shifting extremely quickly even further to the left.

I think it's usually a terrible idea to say "such and such an ideology is dead" after an election. These things have a tendency to turn around somehow or another. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion after the past four years that this country is shifting dramatically, social conservatism is no longer a winning ideology nationally, and it is unlikely to be one again for the foreseeable future.

What do you think?

I don't think it's finished, the House majority is proof enough of that. Romney lost because he doesn't understand the American majority. He's in his own little world, raised in an entirely different class than the majority of Americans. Plus his ideas weren't that great, he's inconsistent, and he doesn't have a great track record of leadership. When talking about Romney, people just felt they were getting a sleazy "Obama lite" and that turns people off. I honestly didn't like the guy at all, which is why I couldn't vote for him.

Social Conservatism itself is not dead, it's just not what the People want at this time. In my opinion, there's a time and a place for everything, and the time for conservatism will come again.
 
What do you think?

Its an indication that republicans should quit nominating RINOs. They propped up a RINO named McCain in 2008 and lost.Then for some idiotic reason they decided to prop up a even bigger RINO named Romney in 2012 and lost. If the republicans actually care about winning then hopefully they don't pick another dirty liberal pretending to be a conservative in 2016.
 
Maybe some people considered the last two GOP presidential nominees to be too moderate.

I agree.In 2008 the republicans nominated Obama lite and in 2012 they nominated Obama almost light.
 
Social conservatism will never die, because there will always be a societal status quo that some people will want to conserve.

What social conservatism MEANS, however, may change. But that would have been true without this election too.

How is wanting to abolish abortion "the status quo?"
 
Yes, I think social conservatism as we know it is finished as a national ideology.
 
Its an indication that republicans should quit nominating RINOs. They propped up a RINO named McCain in 2008 and lost.Then for some idiotic reason they decided to prop up a even bigger RINO named Romney in 2012 and lost. If the republicans actually care about winning then hopefully they don't pick another dirty liberal pretending to be a conservative in 2016.

Even if I agreed Mitt Romney and John McCain weren't conservative in any sense, there is a world of difference between being non-conservative and being liberal.

Being pro-life, against gay marriage, and opposing market regulations or higher taxes on wealthy people are all fairly non-liberal positions.
 
I think too many social conservatives have been satisfied with using religion to frame their position. A lot of these positions are not necessary religious issues (well, perhaps gay marriage...), but that's how they're framed. America has a long history of both religious tradition and secular culture, and most things America does culturally are based on a form of rationality. The problem social conservatives face is the reality that their form of arguing become less meaningful to others as America's religious tradition becomes a less defined aspect of its culture. Ultimately, social conservatism can easily be saved, but it will need to change the way it makes its arguments. Even if arguments can have religious significance to those who hold that position, the sensibility of the arguments will need to be accented in the future.

Gay marriage is a losing argument IMO (though I could be wrong, I just don't see a sensible argument for it outside of religious context). I think the abortion debate can be a strong one for a long time, because you can definitely make the case outside of religious context.
 
Well let's see. George W Bush ran as a social conservative and run twice. McCain and Romney ran without mentioning social issues and lost twice.

Yeah, obviously social conservatism is to blame :roll:
 
Romney didn't lose because of Social Conservatism.

But I still think social conservatism is a losing tactic.

The world is moving on.

It's over.

You lost this battle of ideas long ago.

Whether you like it or not we're moving towards a more socially free future and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
 
Romney didn't lose because of Social Conservatism.

But I still think social conservatism is a losing tactic.

The world is moving on.

It's over.

You lost this battle of ideas long ago.

Whether you like it or not we're moving towards a more socially free future and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

:shrug: then you save as many as you can, for as long as you can.
 
It depends on your definition of social conservative. Multiple states legalized either marijuana or same-sex marriage tonight. That's historic. Those issues are very slowly fading into history. But there are other issues, and there always will be other social issues to be conservative about.
 
Save what in a what now?

The human wreckage of a socially liberal society are kids raised in single parent homes, children murdered before they get a chance to breathe, and a host of social ills (higher rates of incarceration, child rape, drug use, and educational failure). Entire generations in many area's have been lain waste because they have failed to heed the basic social conservative message of the centrality and importance of the family structure.

Even if our cause is doomed (and perhaps it is), it remains incumbent upon us to do the best we can with what we have to help those for whom we have the ability.
 
The human wreckage of a socially liberal society are kids raised in single parent homes, children murdered before they get a chance to breathe, and a host of social ills (higher rates of incarceration, child rape, drug use, and educational failure). Entire generations in many area's have been lain waste because they have failed to heed the basic social conservative message of the centrality and importance of the family structure.

Even if our cause is doomed (and perhaps it is), it remains incumbent upon us to do the best we can with what we have to help those for whom we have the ability.
Liberals are only "against families" in the mythical land of religiously framed social conservatism. There is absolutely no basis in objective reality for any claim that liberalism rejects the family structure as the basic unit of society. That's idiotic in itself, and to claim it.

I'd also like to see evidence that liberal culture also promotes incarceration, child rape, or educational failure. Because there's lots of reasons for all of that, and none of it is because we're liberal, or every other liberal country would have the same issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom